The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. In spite of the fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged of this case, defames the victim by openly pointing out false facts and defames the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was accused of the Daegu Suwon Police Station on the grounds that he did not fully repay KRW 1.8 million that he lent from the victim C, and thus, he was aware of the fact.

On August 18, 2012, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts by pointing out the following facts: “F, and two customers who found f, and f, from the E point of view of the operation of the victim C in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, as a matter of the number of units in the past, the Defendant was in conflict with the victim as a matter of the number of units in the past. The Defendant was in conflict with the victim during the conflict with the victim. The Defendant borrowed KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the instant facts charged on the ground that each of the witness C, G, and F’s respective legal statements, each of the police interrogation protocol (including F and C’s statements), C, F, and G as evidence.

C. 1) The finding of guilt in a relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006).2) The judgment of the lower court and the lower court, and the evidence duly adopted and examined in the trial.